4 ms·

> That hermeneutic - texts are collections of independent logical propositions - was essentially unknown in the ancient world, and cedes immense epistemological

> That hermeneutic - texts are collections of independent logical propositions - was essentially unknown in the ancient world, and cedes immense epistemological ground to the project of the enlightenment that is diametrically opposed to a Christian reading of the Scriptures, which emphasizes their unity and their role in liturgical worship. I just had to quote that sentence construction without comment. But to reply to it more coarsely: who are you to define what a "Christian reading" of the bible is? As I see it, watching from outside the community, the piecewise selective quoting is very much a fundamental part of the practice of Christianity in the modern world -- especially of the evangelical Christianity that dominates in the USA. I mean, I agree it's dumb. I just don't see why it's not "Christian". Christians are what Christians do.

wcarey 6y ago
Sure - by "Christian reading", I mean something like the practice of the ancient church that canonized the scriptures. That there should be normative Christian practice and reading is, perhaps, controversial, but a claim I'm happy to make. Modern American evangelicals who read the scriptures that way are doing it wrong and should knock it off. The scriptures weren't atomized into verses until scholars of the 15th century wanted to work on them. The practice you see today is an outgrowth of that epistemology, and greatly to the detriment of Christian witness, theology, and practice.
skissane 6y ago
> I mean, I agree it's dumb. I just don't see why it's not "Christian". Christians are what Christians do. But American evangelical Protestants are a small minority of global Christianity. Catholics and Orthodox take a different approach, one which emphasises the binding role of church Tradition in interpreting the Bible, an idea which Protestants reject.
- cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
  On the one hand, I think the Catholic approach is more correct than the Protestant one, but I think if the papacy hadn't been so authoritarian during the MIddle Ages and the period leading up to the Reformation that the Protestants wouldn't have felt the need to be able to argue scripture inch by inch by inch.
  - skissane 6y ago
    Counterargument: if they were upset by the behaviour of the Popes, there was always Eastern Orthodoxy – no papacy, and no arguing scripture inch by inch by inch either.
  - hajile 6y ago
    The real debate stems from information control. The Catholic church forbade the translation of the Bible from Latin into the local language (contrary to popular opinion, the majority of people could read even though spelling was not standardized). What happens when those people finally get a copy of the Bible based on the textus receptus and it has Jesus saying the Scripture is immutable and more important than tradition? What happens when they see clear and obvious contradictions between what He said and what their church was doing? When Luther nailed the famous arguments on the church door (in common German so everyone could read them), he wasn't wanting to start up a new church. He was just pointing out the ridiculousness of buying forgiveness and the insane corruption and tradition over Scripture that had caused it. Instead of fixing the problems, the Catholic church doubled down and claimed the right to supersede even Jesus Himself. When they couldn't justify with words, they went straight to force. Also keep in mind that the Catholic church was a political machine first and foremost. The Jesuit order in particular was so political that countries actually pushed the Pope so hard he issued Dominus ac Redemptor to completely suppress the entire order. It was rescinded 41 years later, but due to the internal political power of the Jesuit General, the cardinals refused to elect a Jesuit pope. Politically, the election of the first Jesuit pope in 2013 (199 years after the suppression was rescinded) hallmarked a very large political victory and unification of the Catholic church. With that in mind, the Protestant Reformation, while primarily religious, was also political in nature.
memling 6y ago
> Christians are what Christians do. This is generally not true. Try to replace "Christian" with "Atheist" or "Gnostic" and see how far this travels. While there are, I suppose, some distinctive practices that characterize various systems of belief (or disbelief), what distinguishes Christianity from, say, Judaism, is a set of irreconcilable beliefs (e.g., that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah). It is true that practices might distinguish religious groups (e.g., Orthodox Jews eat no pork, which is allowed to Christians), but those practices directly correlate to beliefs (Peter, citing Jesus, declares all meats clean in the New Testament). No, religions are not merely practice: they are creedal, too. One who rejects the virgin birth is per se not Christian, at least if the word "Christian" means anything.
- goto11 6y ago
  Lots of Christians reject the virgin birth. You can say they are not "real Christians", but they could say the same about you.
  - memling 6y ago
    this sounds as plausible as saying that a lot of atheists believe in god. maybe it's a thing? but it's hard to imagine dropping someone in nicea in 380 and suggesting this. words mean things: Christians believe in more than the virgin birth but certainly not less.
    - keithnz 6y ago
      why not less? I think many see the "facts" as different. Their approaches to the texts are different, but "Christians" align themselves in someway with a entity called "Jesus". Different sects of Christianity tend to have their own definitions of what they think being a "christian" means and there are commonalities from sect to sect, and even some groups of sects have lots of strong commonalties, but there are still many ways they have incompatible beliefs as well. wikipedia has a reasonable list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination... and I'm pretty sure some "christians" in one of the sects would go "They aren't christians!" when it comes to other sects in that list.

wcarey 6y ago

Sure - by "Christian reading", I mean something like the practice of the ancient church that canonized the scriptures. That there should be normative Christian practice and reading is, perhaps, controversial, but a claim I'm happy to make. Modern American evangelicals who read the scriptures that way are doing it wrong and should knock it off. The scriptures weren't atomized into verses until scholars of the 15th century wanted to work on them. The practice you see today is an outgrowth of that epistemology, and greatly to the detriment of Christian witness, theology, and practice.

skissane 6y ago

> I mean, I agree it's dumb. I just don't see why it's not "Christian". Christians are what Christians do. But American evangelical Protestants are a small minority of global Christianity. Catholics and Orthodox take a different approach, one which emphasises the binding role of church Tradition in interpreting the Bible, an idea which Protestants reject.

cheaprentalyeti 6y ago
On the one hand, I think the Catholic approach is more correct than the Protestant one, but I think if the papacy hadn't been so authoritarian during the MIddle Ages and the period leading up to the Reformation that the Protestants wouldn't have felt the need to be able to argue scripture inch by inch by inch.
- skissane 6y ago
  Counterargument: if they were upset by the behaviour of the Popes, there was always Eastern Orthodoxy – no papacy, and no arguing scripture inch by inch by inch either.
- hajile 6y ago
  The real debate stems from information control. The Catholic church forbade the translation of the Bible from Latin into the local language (contrary to popular opinion, the majority of people could read even though spelling was not standardized). What happens when those people finally get a copy of the Bible based on the textus receptus and it has Jesus saying the Scripture is immutable and more important than tradition? What happens when they see clear and obvious contradictions between what He said and what their church was doing? When Luther nailed the famous arguments on the church door (in common German so everyone could read them), he wasn't wanting to start up a new church. He was just pointing out the ridiculousness of buying forgiveness and the insane corruption and tradition over Scripture that had caused it. Instead of fixing the problems, the Catholic church doubled down and claimed the right to supersede even Jesus Himself. When they couldn't justify with words, they went straight to force. Also keep in mind that the Catholic church was a political machine first and foremost. The Jesuit order in particular was so political that countries actually pushed the Pope so hard he issued Dominus ac Redemptor to completely suppress the entire order. It was rescinded 41 years later, but due to the internal political power of the Jesuit General, the cardinals refused to elect a Jesuit pope. Politically, the election of the first Jesuit pope in 2013 (199 years after the suppression was rescinded) hallmarked a very large political victory and unification of the Catholic church. With that in mind, the Protestant Reformation, while primarily religious, was also political in nature.

memling 6y ago

> Christians are what Christians do. This is generally not true. Try to replace "Christian" with "Atheist" or "Gnostic" and see how far this travels. While there are, I suppose, some distinctive practices that characterize various systems of belief (or disbelief), what distinguishes Christianity from, say, Judaism, is a set of irreconcilable beliefs (e.g., that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah). It is true that practices might distinguish religious groups (e.g., Orthodox Jews eat no pork, which is allowed to Christians), but those practices directly correlate to beliefs (Peter, citing Jesus, declares all meats clean in the New Testament). No, religions are not merely practice: they are creedal, too. One who rejects the virgin birth is per se not Christian, at least if the word "Christian" means anything.

goto11 6y ago
Lots of Christians reject the virgin birth. You can say they are not "real Christians", but they could say the same about you.
- memling 6y ago
  this sounds as plausible as saying that a lot of atheists believe in god. maybe it's a thing? but it's hard to imagine dropping someone in nicea in 380 and suggesting this. words mean things: Christians believe in more than the virgin birth but certainly not less.
  - keithnz 6y ago
    why not less? I think many see the "facts" as different. Their approaches to the texts are different, but "Christians" align themselves in someway with a entity called "Jesus". Different sects of Christianity tend to have their own definitions of what they think being a "christian" means and there are commonalities from sect to sect, and even some groups of sects have lots of strong commonalties, but there are still many ways they have incompatible beliefs as well. wikipedia has a reasonable list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination... and I'm pretty sure some "christians" in one of the sects would go "They aren't christians!" when it comes to other sects in that list.